Petitioning for Land is the first book to examine the extent of First Peoples political participation through the use of petitions. Interpreting petitions as a continuous form of political articulation, Karen O'Brien considers petitioning for recognition of prior land ownership as a means by which to locate First Peoples petitioning for change within the broader narrative of historical and contemporary notions of justice. The book follows the story of First Peoples' activism and shows how they actively reform discourse to disseminate a self-determined reality through the act of petitioning. It discloses how, through the petition, First Peoples reject colonialism, even whilst working within its confines. In a reconfiguration of discourse, they actively convey a political or moral meaning to re-emerge in a self-determined world. Taking a socio-legal and historical approach to petitioning, the book questions the state domination of First Peoples, and charts their political action against such control in the quest for self-determination. By uniquely focusing on the act of petitioning, which places First Peoples aspirants centre-stage, O'Brien presents fresh and innovative perspectives concerning their political enterprise. From early modern colonial occupation to contemporary society, the hundreds of petitions that called for change are uncovered in Petitioning for Land, shedding new light on the social and political dynamics that drove the petitions.

Our constitutional freedom to speak out against government and corporate power is always fragile, but today it faces unprecedented hazards. In Managed Speech: The Roberts Courts First Amendment, leading First Amendment scholar, Gregory Magarian, explores and critiques how the present U.S. Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has reshaped and degraded the law of expressive freedom. This timely book shows how the Roberts Court's free speech decisions embody a version of expressive freedom that Professor Magarian calls "managed speech". Managed speech empowers stable, responsible institutions, both government and private, to manage public discussion; disfavors First Amendment claims from social and political outsiders; and, above all, promotes social and political stability. Professor Magarian examines all of the more than forty free speech decisions the Supreme Court handed down between Chief Justice Roberts' ascent in 2005 and Justice Antonin Scalia's death in 2016. Those decisions, taken together, aggressively advance stability at a steep cost to robust public debate. Professor Magarian proposes a theoretical alternative to managed speech, one that would aim to increase the range of ideas and voices in public discussion: "dynamic diversity." A First Amendment doctrine based on dynamic diversity would prioritize political dissent and the rights of journalists, allow for reasonable regulations of money in politics, and work to broaden opportunities for speakers to be heard. This book offers a fresh, critical perspective on the crucial question of what the First Amendment should mean and do.